tv [untitled] February 8, 2012 3:48pm-4:18pm PST
coordination there that ensures we do not get to the 11th hour. that is not something that is impossible to correct. you are right in asking the question. you are forcing everyone to focus on what we need to correct. i cannot anticipate to you today exactly how the departments are responsible for implementation are going to do it. what i can commit to you is, for any action the board has to take either of prop k funding or federal funds, like the ones being discussed discussed today, i would include in our process and recommendations for approval a review and a set of commitments and time lines for those issues to also be addressed. so that there is at least a time table that you can control over time and consider overtime to make sure that the budget is taking progress. that is just a modest step in
leaving you certainty in how these projects are progressing through the time line. thank you. supervisor olague: is the biplane something that has been abandoned entirely -- bicycle lane something that has been abandoned entirely? >> there is an entire package that we will be trying to bring together as one project. the planning phase will include all departments. we will be working in one direction and designing the project as it goes forward. supervisor wiener: supervisor
wiener: one thing that has not been said that may have contributed to the delay, because federal money was involved in caltrans took an odd position, because of this road and sidewalk work touching local historic districts, a local resource evaluation was going to be required. i believe that that contributed to the delay. i think it was an over the top position to take. bicycle safety should not be caught up in historic preservation debates. i will shamelessly plug one of the amendments to articles no. 10 and 11. it would make very clear that unless a street or sidewalk is specifically somehow historic in
nature, it should not be lumped in with historic districts and made more expensive, our ability to make safety improvements. supervisor kim: i understand the delays over the past few years around this project, but no one has told me why in september, when the survey was requested, why then was the office not hold that the federal funding linked to this project at risk? at that point i should have known that we were going to eat -- lose block funding. and no one told us. i found out about the survey from the community. i got angry e-mails from the community saying that the project is being delayed because caltrans had requested it.
i would really like an answer as to why that did not get done. during that entire year, there was a complete communication breakdown that i cannot fathom. all of the delays, i get it, things like that happen often. but the communication, i cannot even conceive of an answer for. supervisor campos: colleagues, any other comments? let me say that commissioner kim has been very kind in her questions and comments. i am still much sure that we have gotten an answer to the questions that have been raised. but it is really interesting that the issue of the bicycle conjunction was raised. it does not preclude community meetings. the injunction was lifted -- lifted in june of 2010, one-and-
a-half years ago. i do have one question for staff, though. i understand that this action was driven by folks in the neighborhood, around second street. have you informed of the community that you are in fact planning to reallocate these funds for other projects? and if so, when did you inform them? >> i have been in conversations with the south beach spurring conservation mission beach neighborhood. they have been aware of our desire to find money planning and wanting to meet with the community. i spoke to the supervisor's office in november. but we have not been able to hold that meeting.
we were notified by the transportation authority, and letting them know about the action in take meeting. supervisor campos: i would submit that even when you have opposition of a project from said -- segments of the community, telling them the night before the action is proposed to be taken is not sufficient notice. the process, the way that this has been handled in the last few days compounds the problems. the agencies that come to this commission for funding requests take very clear notice that this kind of approach is simply unacceptable. let's open it up to public comment. is there any member of the
public that would like to speak on this item? please come forward. >> good morning, commissioners. i am with the san francisco bicycle corp. -- coalition. we were startled and displeased to learn of these events, as you would imagine. the transportation bill is basically getting improvements, the source of this money, ultimately. we cannot afford to lose even $1 of it. second street is an essential in -- essential element. route 11, and it has been bicycle route 11 for decades. the general plan did not just come up with it.
it is in desperate need of improvements or bicycle safety. we were really looking forward to having some improvements. it was set aside for further study in 2009, when the plant was adopted. we collected dozens of letters of support from merchants and residents along the street to make improvements. this news is, at the very least, quite discouraging. there was and still is, nominally, a regional source of funding for bicycle improvements. in the first cycle, three projects receive funding.
the bay trail in district 2, and cargo way improvements in district 10. i am discouraged to say that the marina bay trail will pay for car parking, but we will get past that. the important thing is, as we have all been discussing, to never have this happen again. easy to say. how will we do it? a complete streets. a beautiful vision, but what it comes down to is the ugly and boring business of getting agencies in a room together and talking. let's do that. let's make second street better for everyone. supervisor mar: -- supervisor kim: how were you informed? >> i learned about it on
streetsblog yesterday. boats have been scrambling to put a project together. i am only here because i read about it yesterday on street smart. supervisor campos: thank you. next speaker? >> mr. chair, you like to be very practical. in these dire economic times, the only word that comes to my mind is [unintelligible] so, let me offer you some practical suggestions. quarterly reports, and this of
-- suggestion came from your vice chair, you have landmarks and then you have plan b period we could use this money on san bruno avenue. tomorrow. there are always some streets that lead to much planning. but this is a shame that some people who work for our city make big money and do not do their job. to the people at home, for every 28 constituents, we have one city worker. this is a shame. our city workers, if they want to work for this city and county of san francisco, that also
means the san francisco county transportation authority has to do their job. today is the last day for the san francisco redevelopment agency and commission. today, at the end of this day, no more redevelopments. a diabolical agency that has harmed a lot of people. this should spur us to audit these agencies, where we give them a lot of money to do as they please. who adjudicated this project? why was it sent in one direction when we have four neighborhoods that do not receive that type of money in the right place? why not bruno ave? you have the check that you can ratify, allegedly, to short-term leadership.
thank you very much. supervisor campos: thank you. next speaker? >> good morning, commissioners. i was at the finance committee a few weeks ago talking about the repaving bond. and the opportunity that we have to complete streets with that. also, the city's real failure to step up to its own laws. ever fresher, it is locked in the public works code and it calls for when the city is doing major work on the street at bb build them as complete streets that have -- that we rebuild? as a complete streets -- that we build them as complete streets. a few years before, we put language in proposition k that speaks to the importance of a multi modal planning these
complete streets in the transportation network. we were hoping that as money was allocated, it was done along these lines and with this idea. unfortunately, the practice in the implementing agencies -- i should step back and say that some of the planning over the years have been fine. plans that come out of the planning department or the transportation authority, even the redevelopment agency. at the planning level and the vision level, we are doing great, but when it gets to the mta, particularly public works, things break down and they become incomplete projects. every project, we should be looking at it to say how does it become a complete street? what happens is the assumption that we will rebuild every street big that they the way that it is.
if the community or supervisors intervene, if there is some kind of force, public works grab in the had blocked saying that it will lobby the only complete street, we need to fix that. we are wasting a lot of money, if our goal is to rebuild these as complete streets. if our goal is to build in complete streets and come back later, you are wasting a lot of money. you are also risking people's lives. these streets are dangerous. in you are wasting the communities time. no one knows where the way in is. what we also need to do is work with agencies on neighborhood planning. they need to be accountable to communities in ways that they are not right now the culture, sometimes it is great, often is nonexistent. we need to be more strategic over the improvements that we
are doing over the coming years so we can stop things like this happening, so that we can stop wasting money and in danger in lives. supervisor campos: thank you. next speaker? >> afternoon. my name is joe boss. congratulations, and thank you for mr.," campos and scott wien. they talk about the city family. this city family is one of the most dysfunctional families that i know of in all of san francisco. i know that we cannot fix that, but i just -- i came here to get the update on high-speed rail coming into the city. i had no idea that we were going to have a one hour and a half discussion to try to save $4 million, of which i do not even know how much is going to
overhead, staff, and so forth, as opposed to actual capital improvements. by the way, i am very happy to have mr. [unintelligible] in the city family. he is not one of the dysfunctional people. there are times when i want to say fine -- we lost $4 million. this city plows through $4 million every other day. obviously, i think it is the call of supervisor kim. but this is 2 feet. thank you. supervisor campos: is there any other member of the public that would like to speak on this item? seeing no one, public comment is closed. supervisor chiu: i wanted to ask one question to the executive director. a number of agencies have dropped the ball. i am very disappointed about what happened here. the question is, on our end, can
you tell us what happened and why we -- what are we going to do to make sure that this does not happen again? >> thank you for the question. the reality is that the program has dozens of projects. this is not a particularly large project. so, it would depend really on the department's ability to alert us to problems with these processes in order to be able to help them overcome them in some way or the other. particularly, the difficult situation with this project is that we -- some of the hoops that needed to be jumped through were actually completed. we have worked with the department's to make sure that
we still had a timeline that was workable, many months ago. and then, when it became time to actually move beyond the findings of the historic survey and all of the other things is when the department discovered that there was a significant amount of opposition that would not be overcome. in their view, that was going to do the scheduling of the project. at that point, it was really too late. in a number of locations, we have provided technical and logistical support. moving money around and so on. this really is an extreme case of getting to the final hour. the question of what we can do, the only practical thing that we can try to resolve at this point, as i said to commissioner kim -- i think that at the very
least, i need to be bringing you to the meetings of the program committee with this federal money that you administer. a concrete timeline us that the need to be taken for the federal funds to be discarded. assuming that we all have the same goal of making sure that no money is lost, just made more explicit, so that you can see the time that is available and you can request updates much more often, if necessary. supervisor campos: thank you. -- supervisor avalos: -- supervisor chiu: thank you. i think that for the needs of supervisor kim in her constituency, i think this is a big deal. i wanted to make that point. supervisor campos: thank you. as was noted, we have this
action item. i wanted to get this clarity in terms of how we want to act as a body. is it possible for us to delay action for a few days, for a special meeting? is that something that in any way could endanger the funding at issue? >> it would be better, mr. chairman, if you could act today. i was ill-advised, and i want to make it very clear, i want to advise the department to make the submission that they need to make, making it conditional in an action by the board. i would suggest that you hold a special meeting in the next week or so to make sure that the department is on solid ground, communicating to others that this is an issue that has captured the focus of the board and that action will be taken on it. supervisor campos: commissioner
kim, do you have any preference? supervisor chiu: i -- supervisor kim: i still have a lot of questions that i need to be answered. replacing the $4.8 million on second street. supervisor campos: is that a motion to continue to the call of the chair? i would be happy to make sure that we have a special meeting as soon as possible. supervisor kim: yes, thank you. supervisor campos: colleagues, can we take that motion without objection? without objection. thank you. madam clerk, please call item no. 7. >> item #7. the authority's enabling legislation requires the preparation and adoption of an annual report by january of eac. this is an action item. supervisor campos: -legally, are
we required to take action today on this item? i know that time is running short. >> mr. chairman, the statute requires that i bring you an annual report in january. i think it is important that you hear a presentation. however, i am informed by counsel that we have complied with the spirit of the law, by bringing the item to the board and making it available to the public. i would still like to say that to your pleasure, we can go over this in february. the fact that -- february. supervisor campos: the fact that it is presented is enough to meet requirements? >> yes. i think it is better to delay the action, but consider the item as presented to you and the board. supervisor campos: colleagues,
we will take public comment, but unless there is an objection, i would be inclined to bring this item back to us for a future meeting. let's open it up to public comment. is there any member of the public that would like to speak on item number seven? seeing no one, public comment is closed. colleagues, can we have a motion to continue this to the call of the chair? we can take that without objection. madam clerk, please call item no. 9. >> item #9. update on the implementation of california high-speed rail. this is an information item. supervisor campos: this item was introduced by commissioner wiener. i want to thank him and his staff for this work on this very important project for san francisco and the bay area. we will turn it over to
commissioner winner. >> thank you very -- supervisor wiener: thank you very much. i called for this meeting to update the city on the progress for high-speed rail. to discuss how and when we bring high-speed rail to san francisco and declared this as an opportunity, unlike any other, for us to act reasonably and involved institutional partners. how we bring the high-speed rail to san francisco is a discussion about land use and jobs, as much as it is about transportation. governor brown's recent full support of high-speed rail is very welcome in san francisco, where we are building the first project. i know that a lot of us are very happy to hear the governor reiterate his support and show
that despite the noise that has been circulating around in certain quarters, that there is support for high-speed rail and it is critical to the future of transportation in the economy in california. at the same time, we must actively look for ways to move the project forward, reduce costs, collaborate with regional partners, and explore how to bring more funding to the enterprise. as with any transformative infrastructure transportation project, whether it is the interstate highway system or railways, it is not cheap or easy and it does not happen overnight. the same is true here. i know that we will find a way to make this happen. with that, i would like to turn the discussion over to the mayor's office. then we will invite the director and staff to present. mr. elliott?
>> thank you, commissioners. jason elliott, from the mayor's office. thank you for giving us this opportunity to discuss the city's vision for high-speed rail. the mayor is committed to bringing it to san francisco at the earliest possible date. i will not deliver his support to much, but when he was in washington a couple of weeks ago, this was a topic of conversation that he brought very frequently. his support is strong and unwavering. this is the original northern terminus, as promised to the voters. it is the first statewide i still work -- high-speed rail project. this is actually broken ground and underactive construction. trans day represents a real commitment from the federal government and local partners to
make high-speed rail a reality. as you mentioned, we are all grateful for the strong support. this past weekend he made some more reaffirming comments. this is a substantial investment in the future of california. ultimately, the mayor feels that this needs to get built now or in the future. not so much because of detractors in the city, but because this is something that needs to get done and is much more -- going to be much more expensive in the future. if we can work together to make high-speed rail a reality -- we have already begun thinking creatively about how public and private partnerships could help us to bring this system to fruition. we have seen other types of partnerships like this operate
with tremendous success. the mayor believes that this is a strategy that the city should consider as well. specifically, the mayor would like to extend his appreciation to you, supervisor, for all the work that has been done so far. of course, thank you for everything that is about to happen, as this board takes action in this process moves forward. the best credit he suggested so far is this concept of a fast start program with the caltrans electrification program, eventually finishing at the trans bay transit center. it is of utmost importance to all of those. this, ultimately, when it is all billed out, but be a transformative project for the city in the state. we have milestones coming in the future. the mayor appreciates the work done towards those milestones on developing